Patna High CourtCR. MISC./2131/2017rejected

Bikash Ranjan v. The State Of Bihar

2017-02-14Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.2131 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -155 Year- 2016 Thana -BAUSI District- PURNIA ====================================================== Bikash Ranjan Son of late Robin Ghosh Resident of Mohalla- Shastri Nagar, Police Station K.Hat, District Purnea. Suspended Block Nazir , Baisi, P.S. Baisi, District Patna.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Viveka Nandsingh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. G. S. Gupta (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 14-02-2017 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned A.P.P. for the State.

In this application for anticipatory bail the petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Baisi P.S. Case No. 155 of 2016 for the offence punishable under section 409 of the I.P.C. The petitioner, a suspended Nazir of Baisi Block, did not hand over the charge of cash of Rs. 1,71,277/- and further no voucher was produced regarding the amount of Rs. 31,47,357/- and as such it reveals that he has embezzled that amount. Submission is of false implication and that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent, he has already been suspended, certificate case has also been lodged, besides suspicion

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2131 of 2017 (3) dt.14-02-2017 2/2 there is nothing against the petitioner, the petitioner has taken charge of balance accounting on 09.08.2013 from the outgoing Nazir, the outgoing Block Nazir, Baisi had given charge of vouchers of only Rs. 11,46,508=47 paise, the charge of vouchers of Rs. 31,47,357/- was not given by the outgoing Block Nazir, Baisi to the petitioner and this fact would appear from the details of closing balance accounting as on 09.08.2013, as a result of which the petitioner could not handover the charge of vouchers of Rs. 13,47,357/-, no notice was given earlier to the petitioner by the informant regarding the aforesaid allegation and as such the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration. The learned A.P.P. seriously opposes prayer for prearrest bail of the petitioner.

In the facts and circumstances as stated above, considering the allegation attributed against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner and accordingly his such prayer stands rejected in connection with the aforementioned case pending in the court of C.J.M. Purnea.